The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures: ISSN 1203-1542

!"# %&'()*+ &, -#.
(#/
01(234'(#5
!""# %&'()%*+&
http:,,www.jhsonline.org and
http:,,purl.org,jhs

Articles in JlS are being indexed in the A1LA Religion Database,
6789: and !-;<=>:. 1heir abstracts appear in Religious
and 1heological Abstracts. 1he journal is archied by the National
Library o Canada, and is accessible or consultation and research at
the Llectronic Collection site maintained by the !"# ?*42&)*+
=2.(*(@ &, A*)*B*.

"#$%&' () *+,-.$' (

/%*0 &*0%'$ ,'1'2) 34#% 25*$$ 0#, *15#+ *0
'6#&-,') 7#+ 5' -2 4#%+ 1+#,5'+89 ,5'
,+*6-,-#0 #7 '2*% *06 ,5' '6#&-,'
:'0'*$#:-'2 7+#& *0 *0,5+#;#$#:-.*$
;'+2;'.,-"'
doi:10.5508/jhs.2006.v6.a6
JOURNAL Ol lLBRL\ SCRIP1URLS 2
34#% 25*$$ 0#, *15#+ *0 '6#&-,') 7#+
5' -2 4#%+ 1+#,5'+89 ,5' ,+*6-,-#0 #7
'2*% *06 ,5' '6#&-,' :'0'*$#:-'2
7+#& *0 *0,5+#;#$#:-.*$ ;'+2;'.,-"'

JUAN MANULL 1LBLS
UNIVLRSI1\ Ol BULNOS AIRLS, CA1lOLIC UNIVLRSI1\ Ol
ARGLN1INA, NA1IONAL RLSLARCl COUNCIL
BULNOS AIRLS, ARGLN1INA
-< -0,+#6%.,-#0
=<= le is known as Jacob`s brother, the irst-born`, the preerred
o Isaac, a skilled hunter`, and ancestor o the Ldomites, he is een
called my lord` eight times by Jacob ,Genesis,. But he is also hated by
\ahweh ,Malachi,, and is accused o -among other things- with anger,
wrath and iolence against his brother ,Amos,. In the end, he was
threatened with massacre and annihilation ,Jeremiah, Obadiah,. Lsau is
a character with multiple representations in the lebrew Bible, which are
as complex as they are diicult to decipher. \hy such dissimilarities in
the biblical images about Lsau \hat perspectie must we adopt in the
ace o this pattern \ith these questions in mind, we will examine the
sociopolitical and ideological ramework that gae birth to the biblical
tradition o the brotherhood o Jacob, the Israelite patriarch, and his
brother Lsau. 1his analysis incorporates traditional approaches o
biblical scholarship and current anthropological perspecties. It will also
trace, albeit briely, some topics that are releant to this issue, e.g., the

1his paper incorporates part o my Ph.D. dissertation at the Uniersity

o Buenos Aires, Argentina. Its research and writing was carried out
during 2004-2005 at the \. l. Albright Institute o Archaeological
Research ,AIAR, in Jerusalem, where I was George A. Barton lellow,
at the American Center o Oriental Research ,ACOR, in Amman,
where I was the Pierre and Patricia Bikai lellow, and at the Department
o Lgyptology, National Research Council ,CONICL1,, Buenos Aires,
where I am a Doctoral lellow. I am most graceul to these three
institutions, especially to the sta, or their help, adice and riendship.
I receied much aluable adice rom a number o people, I should
especially mention Robert A. Mullins and Michael A. Daise. 1his does
not mean that they accept the iews expressed in this article.
Responsibility or the ideas expressed herein is mine alone.1he ideas
exposed in this article were presented in a preliminary orm in the
.OR êr.tetter 55-4 ,2005,: 1 ,http:,,www.asor.org,pubs
news,55_4.pd ,

,

\OU SlALL NO1 ABlOR AN LDOMI1L` 3
tradition o the brotherhood as it appears in biblical scholarship, the
question o southern Jordanian material culture in the Nege, and the
issue o kinship, segmentation and orality in ancient societies.
=<> My main hypothesis is that while the story o Jacob and Lsau,
and the Ldomite genealogical lists, are rooted in concrete eents and
relationships, they should be understood in terms o the region and
period in which they arose, in this case, the southern margins o the
kingdom o Judah in the Late Iron Age. Archaeological research in the
Nege has proided substantial eidence or the appearance o both
imported and local southern Jordanian Ldomite` cultural traits ,most
notably pottery,. As a result, this has been taken as eidence or the
migration and settlement o southern Jordanian groups in this region.
In light o this archaeological and theoretical background, I will suggest
that the Jacob-Lsau saga and the Ldomite genealogies arose as a
conlation o dierent, yet contemporary, oral traditions within the
circle o local Nege population groups to mentally accommodate to
this new sociopolitical and demographic situation.
--< ,5' /*.#1?'2*% 2*:* *06 ,5' '6#&-,' :'0'*$#:-'2
><= 1he language o kinship is an essential component o Israelite
narraties concerning their own origins. lamily relationships are used to
explain the origin o arious groups o peoples known by the biblical
authors, whether nations, tribes or city-states. Aboe all, indiiduals
belonging to a nation are regarded as descendants o one ancestral
eponym, real or imagined. 1he lebrew Bible maintains this parameter
in almost all cases, without adding many explanations to the long lists o
oreathers. Len so, there are occasions in which the biblical writers
make urther appeal to detailed stories, in the case o the traditions
surrounding the origins o the neighboring Jordanian peoples -the
Ammonites, Moabites and Ldomites. Gien the close ties the Israelites
had with their nearest neighbors, it is quite natural to ind detailed
accounts or the births o the eponyms o these peoples. \hat it is not
so obious is that the picture depicted by the Bible is completely
dierent in the case o Ldom.
><> An analysis o the biblical reerences to these nations shows
that Ldom was iewed rom aried and multiaceted perspecties, while
the representations o Ammon and Moab were similar and always
hostile. Contrary to the short account o the origins o Ammon and
Moab ,Gen 19:30-38,, the lebrew Bible concedes a lot o attention to
the story o Lsau. 1hough historically the three peoples rialed
politically and militarily with the Israelites, there is a tendency in the
lebrew Bible ,which probably relects the authentic olklore o the
people o southern Judah, to perceie the Ldomites rom a more
aorable perspectie. As we will see, this more aorable attitude
towards Ldom is exceptionally particular, inasmuch as the story o
Lsau, the alleged eponym o Ldom, is intimately linked to that o his
brother Jacob, ancestor o the Israelites.
><@ Despite the relatiely generous treatment that the Bible gies o
the Lsau tradition, there has been strong disagreement concerning its
date o origin. 1he most easily datable passages are the reerences to
seeral prophetic books that represent Lsau as the brother o Jacob, or
at least know the equation o Lsau as Ldom. 1he brotherhood` o

Jacob and Ldom was certainly recognized in post-exilic times, since the
book o Malachi ,1:2-4,, generally dated to the ith century B.C.,
acknowledges it. lere, the author makes \ahweh say that he still loes
Israel, despite the accusations o Israelites to the contrary: But you say,
low hae you loed us` Is not Lsau Jacob`s brother says the Lord.
\et I hae loed Jacob but I hae hated Lsau` ,1:2-3,. 1hat the author
is reerring to Ldom is conirmed by the ollowing statement that I
|\ahweh| hae made his hill country a desolation,` to which Ldom`
replies, \e are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins` ,1:3-4,. 1hese
erses corroborate that the connection between Lsau and Jacob was
strong enough to make \ahweh opt between the two brothers.
><A 1he historical context in which the erses that reer to Lsau are
presented in Jeremiah ,49:-22, and throughout Obadiah is generally
belieed to hae taken place during the all o Jerusalem in 58,586
B.C., or slightly later, when Ldom allegedly assisted the Babylonians
against the Judaean kingdom, or at least proited rom Judah`s deeat.
Jeremiah`s two reerences to Lsau ,49: 8, 10, appear in the general
context o the oracle against Ldom ,49:-22,. 1hese include
geographical allusions to 1eman, Dedan, Bozrah, and the Red Sea.
Obadiah`s ision concerning Ldom` parallels some material rom
Jeremiah, and includes reerences to Lsau, the mountains o Lsau, the
house o Lsau, and 1eman. Moreoer, Lsau and Ldom are accused o
the iolence against your brother Jacob` ,1:10, and o haing gloated
oer your brother on the day o his misortune` ,1:12,.
1

><B Possibly the earliest datable reerence to the Lsau tradition
comes rom the book o the prophet Amos: 1hus says the Lord: lor
three transgressions o Ldom, and or our, I will not reoke the
punishment, because he pursued his brother with the sword and cast
o all pity, he maintained his anger perpetually, and kept his wrath
oreer` ,Amos 1:11,. In iew o the act that Amos is traditionally
dated to the eighth century B.C., and assuming the authenticity o this
erse, this passage may relect the continuous struggles that took place
between the kingdoms o Judah and Ldom eer since the latter`s
independence under the Judaean king Joram ,ca. 848-841 B.C.,
2
1he
genuineness o this oracle, howeer, has been rejected by seeral
scholars who preer to date it to a later period, maybe in reerence to
Ldom`s attitude in the ace o the catastrophic eents o 58,586 B.C.
I Amos` allusion is a subsequent addition, then we cannot date the
tradition o Lsau prior to the early sixth century B.C.
3

><( Although other biblical passages also reeal the same hostility
towards the Ldomites, the correlation between Ldom and Lsau, or the
brotherhood with Jacob, are not present. See, or example, Isaiah
,11:14, 21:11, 34, 63:1,, Lzekiel ,25:8, 12-14, 32:29, 35, 36:5,, Joel ,3:19,,

1
lor an analysis o these biblical quotations, see J. R. Bartlett, 1he
Brotherhood o Ldom,` ]O1 4 ,19,: 2-2, idem, Ldom and the Ldomites
,JSO1Sup Series , Sheield: Sheield Academic Press, 1989,, idem, Ldom
in listory,` .D 2: 292.
2
M. laran, Obserations on the listorical Background o Amos 1:2-
2:6,` ] 18 ,1968,: 20-11, B. Glazier-McDonald, Ldom in the Prophetic
Corpus,` in Yov batt ôt .bbor av aovite for e i. Yovr rotber. aov ava eir
iv i.tor, ava 1raaitiov, ed. D.V. Ldelman ,SBLABS 3, Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1995,, 25-26.
3
Bartlett, 1he Brotherhood o Ldom,` 15-16.

Psalms ,60:8-9, 83:6, 108:9-10, 13:,, and Lamentations ,4:21-22,.
4
\et
this absence does not oer us any clue concerning when the stories o
Lsau originated, since the authors o these works did not consider it
necessary to reer to the brotherhood tradition. Similarly, many o the
prophetic books probably do not contain all the oracles o the
corresponding prophet, oracles that certainly could hae possessed
reerences to the Jacob-Lsau saga.
><C 1he core` o the narraties concerning Jacob and Lsau
appears in the book o Genesis. Len though we do not know i the
aboe mentioned prophets knew the story o Jacob and Lsau as it
stands now in Genesis, there is no disagreement about the story`s main
points. 1hus, Genesis can be conidently treated as the source` or the
other texts. 1he ollowing discussion will ocus on the most important
passages in Genesis concerning Lsau and Ldom, and which can be
grouped as ollows:
1. 1he birth o Lsau and Jacob, 25:19-28.
2. Lsau gies his birthright to Jacob, 25:29-34.
to Lsau, 2:1-45. 3. Jacob receies Isaac`s blessing corresponding
again, 32:4-22, 33:1-1. 4. Jacob and Lsau meet
5. Lsau`s descendants:
6:1-5. a. Lsau`s wies and their sons, 3
8. b. Lsau departs to Seir, 36:6-
c. Lsau`s ospring, 36:9-14.
d. Ldomite chietains, 36:15-19.
e. Seir`s ospring, 36:20-28.
. . lorite chietains, 36:29-30
g. Ldomite kings, 36:31-39.
h. Ldomite chietains, 36:40-43.
><D 1he story o Lsau and Jacob is largely a narration o amiliar
eents that occur in a tribal, semi-pastoral society. Both brothers were
born rom the union o the patriarch Isaac and his wie Rebekah. lere
the biblical author plays on the etymologies o their names: the irst to
be born was red` ,::b, a pun on Ldom, o:,, like a hairy cloak`
,yc, a play on Seir, yc,, and was called Lsau ,:cy, ,Gen 25:25,.
Jacob was the second to be born. 1he narratie describes both
characters as haing contrasting personalities. Lsau is a skilled hunter,
a man o the open country`. Jacob was a quiet man, staying at home
among the tents` ,Gen 25:2,. Moreoer, both parents disagreed in
their preerences: Isaac preerred Lsau, while Rebekah aored Jacob
,Gen 25:28,.
><E Later we are gien an explanation or the other name by which
we know Jacob`s brother: Ldom. 1he story recounts how an exhausted
Lsau gae his birthright to Jacob ,Gen 25:29-34, in exchange or a red
pottage that the latter had prepared. Lentils are simply called the red`
,on,, and since lentils are brown, that they are called red` may be a
pun as well. 1he biblical author explains this as the reason why Lsau
was called Ldom , , ,Gen 25:30,. o:
><=F 1he pottage story is clearly a tradition that retrospectiely
reconstructs the political domination o Israel,Judah ,Jacob, oer
Ldom ,Lsau,. 1his, howeer, does not preclude the appearance o

4
1o this we can add other passages o Jeremiah ,9:26, 25:21,.

another story o the same type: the astute Jacob deceies his ather in
order to receie the blessing that was originally intended or Lsau ,Gen
2:1-45,, another reerence to the unriendly relationships between the
historical Israelites and Ldomites ,see urther discussion below,.
><== 1he content o Gen 36 can be diided into seen lists mostly
comprising names o descendants o Lsau and Seir. 1o begin with, we
learn that Lsau married Canaanite women, with whom had sons ,. 1-
5,, and settled in the mountains o Seir ,yc, ,. 6-8,.
5
lollowing this
short introduction, there are seeral lists that are highly interrelated.
lence, a second ersion o Lsau`s descendants ,. 9-14,, is ollowed
by the list o Ldomite chietains` ,oc::, ,. 15-19,, which is but a
ariation o the preceding list. By the same token, the list o the
descendants o Seir, the lorites ,. 20-28,, is roughly similar to the list
o lorite chietains` ,oc::, ,. 29-30, that goes aterwards. Lastly,
there is a list o kings ,oo:b, who reigned in the land o Ldom, beore
any king reigned oer the Israelites` ,. 31-39,, and a second record o
the Ldomite c:: o ,. 40-43,. 1hese lists share a lot o material in
common and, as we will see, are to a great extent related to the history
o the Israelites.
><=> 1he other Pentateuchal passages concerned with the
brotherhood o Ldom are those that describe the dealings o the
Israelites with Ldom during the Lxodus. In Num 20:14-21, Moses
requests an unnamed Ldomite king or permission to pass through his
country, beginning his speech with the statement 1hus says your
brother Israel` ,Num 20:14,. Similarly, Deut 2 has \ahweh saying to
Israel that \ou are about to pass through the territory o your brothers
the descendants o Lsau, who lie in Seir` ,. 4,, so as not to engage in
war with them, thereore, we |the Israelites| passed beyond our
brethren, the descendants o Lsau who dwell in Seir` ,. 8,. In addition,
a short reerence occurs in the descriptions o the Deuteronomic law:
\ou shall not abhor an Ldomite, or he is your brother` ,Deut 23:8,.
1his statement contrasts strongly with what was preiously said about
the Ammonites and Moabites, who were prohibited to enter in the
assemblage o \ahweh ,Deut 23:3-6,.
---< ,5' 1+#,5'+5##6 #7 '6#& -0 1-1$-.*$
2.5#$*+25-;
@<= Although the biblical passages concerning the Jacob-Lsau saga
hae been the ocus o seeral studies, there is still no consensus as to
their dates and historical contexts. 1he dierse circumstances to which
the brotherhood tradition has been attached has prompted scholars to
oer multiple and aried proposals. loweer, scholars hae generally
agreed that the identiication o Jacob with Israel and Lsau with Ldom
is secondary. 1he original tenor o the story may hae originally had to
do with the wanderings o Jacob, here related only to 1ransjordan,
whereas the Jacob-Lsau tradition was only intended to account or the
traditional encounters between herdsmen ,represented by Jacob, and
hunters ,represented by Lsau,, so typical o the early colonization o
1ransjordan.
6
So, where does this leae Lsau J. R. Bartlett concluded

5
In this regard another tradition states that, by settling in Mt. Seir, the
Ldomites expelled the lorites, who where the original inhabitants o the
region ,Deut 2:12, 22,.
6
lor this iew see, with ariants, l. Gunkel, Ceve.i. ,Gottingen:

\OU SlALL NO1 ABlOR AN LDOMI1L`
that originally Lsau was probably only connected with Seir ,~ Nege,,
and that only in a second stage, the olklore linked Lsau,Seir with the
eponymous ancestor Ldom ,~ southern Jordan,.
1his radical reersal

o the story o Jacob and Lsau as it stands in Genesis leads us to two
major questions: why a saga o Israelite patriarchs was linked to Ldom
and when this transormation occurred. A number o hypotheses hae
been oered, and it is not unusual or one scholar to support multiple
iews. loweer, or greater clarity, we will cluster them into our
groups: the textual, political, religious-cultic, and geographical-migratory
hypotheses.
@<> ,'G,%*$ 54;#,5'2'2! Some scholars hae argued that the
Deutoronomist`s high regard or the Ldomites can be explained by
reerring to the text o the lebrew Bible itsel. C. M. Carmichael argued
that one should look to the brotherly aection with which Lsau
receied Jacob ater the latter`s departure rom Laban`s home.
8
M. Noth
ocused on \ahweh`s arrangement or Ldom in its own distinct area o
settlement, so that a conlict between Israel and Ldom would be
unnecessary.
9
loweer, these hypotheses are discredited on the
grounds that they are sel-explanatory, namely, they place too much
conidence on the biblical text itsel, without paying attention to the
sociopolitical and ideological background in which the stories were
produced.
@<@ ;#$-,-.*$ 54;#,5'2'2! 1he act that Jacob and Lsau are
portrayed in some parts o the lebrew Bible as the eponymous
ancestors o Israel and Ldom has been taken by many to relect the
political relationships between the kingdoms o Israel,Judah and Ldom
rom a retrospectie point o iew. Many ariants o this thesis exist. \.
\. Canon, or example, argued that the coalition o Leantine polities
against Assyria during the time o the Judaean king lezekiah, in which
both Judah and Ldom participated, is the realpolitik behind the riendly
tone towards Ldom.
10
Alternatiely, Bartlett suggested in an early article
that the biblical reerences to the brotherhood o Ldom originated in
the northern tradition, concerned as it was with the political relationship
between the kingdom o Israel and Ldom is-a-is a common enemy
,Judah,, only with the all o Samaria was the brotherly status between

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911,, 296-9, S. Blank, Studies in Post-Lxilic
Uniersalism,` |C. 11 ,1938,: 159 ., M. Noth, . i.tor, of Pevtatevcbat
1raaitiov. ,Repr., Chico: Scholars Press, 1981,, 88-98, 192-93, G. on Rad,
Ceve.i.: . Covvevtar, ,3rd ed., O1L, London: SCM, 192,, 25-6, V. Maag,
Jakob-Lsau-Ldom,` 1beotogi.cbe Zeit.cbrift 13 ,195,: 418-29, V. G. \allis,
Die 1radition on den drei Ahntern,` Z.! 81 ,1969,: 20-22, 1. L.
1hompson, 1be i.toricit, of tbe Patriarcbat ârratire.: 1be Qve.t for tbe i.toricat
.brabav ,BZA\ 133, Berlin & New \ork: de Gruyter, 194,, 325, idem,
Conlict 1hemes in the Jacob Narraties,` eveia 15 ,199,: 14, Bartlett, 1he
Land o Seir and the Brotherhood o Ldom,` ]1 n.s. 20 ,1969,: 9-18, idem,
1he Brotherhood o Ldom,` 3, 1-18, idem, aov ava tbe aovite., 1-9, U.
lb D 2: 55. ner, Lsau,` .
Bartlett, ibid.
8
Carmichael, 1be ar. of Devterovov, ,Ithaca and London: Cornell
Uniersity Press, 194,, 16.
9
Noth, |bertiefervvg.ge.cbicbticbe tvaiev: aie .avvetvaev vva bearbeitevaev
Ce.cbicbtrer/e iv .ttev 1e.tavevt ,2nd. ed., 1bingen: Niemeyer Verlag, 195,,
129-40.
10
Canon, Israel and Ldom: the Oracle o Obadiah. I.,` 1beotog, 14 ,192,:
129-40, 191-200.

the two established in Judah.
11
More recently, L. Assis has suggested
that the Ldomite participation in the destruction o Jerusalem and the
colonization o southern Judah in the early sixth century B.C. led to a
common thought that Ldom was the people chosen by God, and that it
was this attitude that in reaction originated the ierce anti-Ldomite bias
o the prophets.
12
loweer, i Amos` oracle on Ldom is authentic, then
anti-Ldomite eelings were present beore the 58,586 B.C. eents,
urthermore, as it will be shown below, archaeological eidence
demonstrates that the Ldomite presence in the Nege is earlier than the
sixth century B.C. G. loekeld-Meijer has hypothesized in an
innoatie, yet highly polemical study, that the narraties o Jacob and
Lsau represent the post-exilic political conlicts between dierent
groups o Israelites, especially between those coming rom Lgypt ,who
supported a uniersal, Ldomite` concept o \ahweh, and Babylonia
,who maintained a particularistic concept o \ahweh as the God o
Israel,.
13

@<A loweer the most conincing political hypothesis is that which
claims a correlation between the Jacob-Lsau saga and the relationship
between Israel,Judah and Ldom throughout the entire Iron Age. 1he
construction o the primacy` o Jacob oer Lsau is regarded as
relecting the state o Ldom as a political minority with respect to Israel,
in a period that, rom the biblical perspectie, can be placed between
the tenth and ninth or eighth centuries B.C.
14
Len though Ldom
appears as a polity in certain passages beore the stories o Daid, it was
during this ruler`s campaign against Ldom ,conentionally, the early
tenth century B.C., that Israelites are said to hae subjugated Ldom or
the irst time ,2 Sam 8:13-14, 1 Kgs 11:15-16, 1 Chron 18:12-13, Psalm
60,. 1his situation may hae lasted until the middle o the ninth century
B.C., since under the reign o Jehoshaphat ,ca. 869-848 B.C.,, 1here
was no king in Ldom, a deputy was king` ,1 Kgs 22:4,. Only during
the reign o Joram ,ca. 848-841 B.C., were the Ldomites apparently able
to break away rom Judah`s rule ,2 Kgs 8:20-22, 2 Chron 21:8-10,. Later
Judaean kings attempted to re-conquer Ldomite territory: Amaziah ,ca.
96-6 B.C., sent a successul expedition to Ldom ,2 Kgs 14:, 2
Chron 25:11-12,, ollowed by the recoery o Llath by his son Uzziah
,also known as Azariah, ca. 6-40 B.C., ,2 Kgs 14:22, 2 Chron 26:2,.
1hese wars presumably brought Judah to a position o political
superiority oer Ldom. loweer, Judah was not able to maintain its
supremacy, thus, under Ahaz ,ca. 32-16 B.C., the Ldomites took
back Llath ,2 Kgs 16:6,, and may hae een inaded Judaean territory
,2 Chron 28:16-18,.
15

11
Bartlett, 1he Brotherhood o Ldom,` 13-15. Bartlett seems to hae
abandoned this iew later on.
12
Assis, \hy Ldom On the lostility 1owards Jacob`s Brother in
Prop 5 ,2006,: 1-20. hetic Sources,` 11
13
loekeld-Meijer, .av: atratiov iv Di.gvi.e. Ceve.i. . . iaaev Potevic
etreev Ovr 1eacber ava tbe Probet. abovt aov`. Rote iv Po.titic .raet tbrovgb
eitrort âve. ,Kampen: Pharos, 1996,.
14
Maag, Jakob-Lsau-Ldom`, laran, Obserations,` 20-11, \allis, Die
1radition,` 21, M. lishbane, 1he 1reaty Background o Amos 1
11
and Related
Matters,` ] 89 ,190,: 315, Bartlett, 1he Brotherhood o Ldom,` 18-19,
idem, Ldom in the Nonprophetic Corpus,` in Yov batt ôt .bbor av aovite,
ed. Ldelman, 13-21.
15
See Bartlett, aov ava tbe aovite., 103-45, J. Lindsay, Ldomite

@<B 1here seems to be a deliberate attempt by the biblical authors
to relate these political circumstances to the story o Jacob and Lsau.
1his can be eident in an attempt by Genesis to make the theological
point that the political supremacy o Judah oer Ldom was already
dictated by the ascendancy o Jacob oer Lsau. It is in this sense that
the political hypothesis its well with the content o the story. 1hus,
Gen 25:21-28 relates how \ahweh said to Rebekah: 1wo nations are in
your womb, and two peoples rom within you will be separated, one
people will be stronger than the other, and the older will sere the
younger` ,Gen 25:23,. 1he story o the birthright selling ,Gen 25:29-34,
can be understood in the same context. 1he blessing o Isaac on Jacob
concluded with the obious political statement, Let peoples sere you,
and nations bow down to you. Be lord oer your brothers, and may
your mother`s sons bow down to you` ,Gen 2:29,.
@<( Len so, the biblical authors knew that the ascendancy o
Judah oer Ldom was a circumstance o the past. 1he context o Gen
2:40 leads one to this conclusion since, ater Lsau inquired about his
birthright, Isaac said to his despised son that By your sword you shall
lie, and you shall sere your brother, but when you break loose, you
shall break his yoke rom your neck`. I this erse reers to the end o
the Judaean rule oer Ldom, then it proides a terminus post quem or
the composition o the brotherhood tradition. Based on this reasoning,
the tradition o Lsau as the brother o Jacob could not hae been
written beore the mid-ninth century B.C., when the biblical account
mentions an emergent independent monarchy in Ldom, or better,
beore the late eighth century B.C., when the Ldomites recoered rom
their territorial losses in the preious decades.
@<C 1his scenario is seemingly logical, as long as one accepts seeral
assumptions not adequately supported by the eidence. lirst, there is
the supposition that the erses concerning \ahweh`s and Isaac`s words,
as quoted aboe, belong to the original tradition o Jacob and Lsau.
loweer, one cannot easily take this or granted, gien the relatie
isolation o these passages in terms o their orm and content, and in
relation to the story as a whole. Second, some scholars hae taken a
rather nae approach towards the context o the biblical composition,
in particular the purpose o the biblical author,s,` in writing the story o
Jacob and Lsau. Although the Bible oten translated political situations
into the language o kinship, it would be too simplistic to assume that
the Jacob-Lsau saga was composed only or the purpose o putting into
plain words the political relationships between the kingdoms o
Israel,Judah and Ldom. 1hat this was not always the case is elucidated
by the biblical attitude towards the Ammonites and Moabites.
According to a ariety o biblical passages, these peoples ,or signiicant
parts o their territories, were dominated by the Israelites during their
early histories, and only later did they deelop into independent
kingdoms. \et a parallel ersion o the brotherhood o Israel with
Ammon and Moab is clearly absent in the biblical text, making it clear
that the correlation between politics and patriarchal stories should be
demonstrated rather than assumed.
@<D A third supposition on which the political hypothesis has been
based is that the biblical traditions concerning Ldom are highly

\estward Lxpansion: 1he Biblical Lidence,` .vcievt êar a.terv tvaie. 36
,1999,: 48-89.

accurate, thus, they can proide reliable clues about its history. 1he
historicity o many o these traditions is, howeer, questionable.
lurthermore, it would be misleading to use late biblical historical data
to support hypotheses and datings o Ldom`s early history. 1he lack o
reliability o the biblical traditions concerning Ldom prior to the
seenth century B.C. has been consistently conirmed through data
proided by numerous archaeological excaations and sureys
conducted in the land o Ldom in recent decades. 1hese works indicate
that intensie settlement in this area started in the late eighth century
B.C., and that the most important Ldomite sites were ounded on
bedrock only at this time.
16
Some controersy has arisen as to the
existence o earlier material, especially Iron I-IIA ,1200-925 B.C.,
pottery, which some scholars hae adduced to be eidence o
settlement beore the eighth century B.C.
1
Archaeological excaations
hae shown that only minor sites were present in the Iron Age I-IIA,
mainly in the mining region o leinan, in the lowlands o Ldom.
18

loweer, their relationship to the deelopment o Ldom is not yet
clear. Regarding the character o the pre-eighth century B.C. eidence, it
can be reasonably concluded that during the Iron I-IIA periods, Ldom
was dominated by groups that practiced a mixed economy o
pastoralism and small-scale agriculture. Any eidence o statehood
organization, or een social stratiication, are conspicuously absent. At
the same time, there is no archaeological indication o an Israelite
political-military domination oer Ldom during the Iron Age. 1hough
the presence o Israelite oicials in pre-eighth century B.C. Ldom
cannot be discounted, their authority may not hae been strong enough
to adequately control the semi-nomadic groups that lied in the area.
Similarly, the king-list o Gen 36:31-39 does not tell us anything about
Ldom`s history in the Larly Iron Age, and in iew o the reerence to
Bozrah ,modern Buseirah,, it is unlikely that it predates the eighth
century B.C.
19

@<E Local epigraphic data and Assyrian sources also suggest that the
political deelopment o Ldom occurred no earlier than the eighth
century B.C. 1he earliest reerence to Ldom in Assyrian inscriptions
appears on the Nimrud Slab, a list o states subjugated by Adad-nirari
III ca. 96 B.C. 1he next mention is a tribute list o 1iglath-pileser III
that reers to eents ca. 32 B.C. 1he list names the irst known

16
P. Bienkowski, 1he Date o Sedentary Occupation in Ldom: Lidence
rom Umm el-Biyara, 1awilan and Buseirah,` in art, aov ava Moab: 1be
egivvivg of tbe rov .ge iv ovtberv ]oraav, ed. Bienkowski ,Sheield
Arch graphs , Oxord: J.R. Collis, 1992,, 99-112. aeological Mono
1
I. linkelstein, irivg ov tbe rivge. 1be .rcbaeotog, ava i.tor, of tbe êger,
ivai ava êigbbovrivg Regiov. iv tbe rove ava rov .ge. ,Monographs in
Mediterranean Archaeology 6, Sheield: Sheield Academic Press, 1995,, 12-
3.
18
1. L. Ley, R. B. Adams, M. Najjar, A. lauptmann, J. D. Anderson, B.
Brandl, M. A. Robinson and 1. ligham, Reassessing the Chronology o
Biblical Ldom: New Lxcaations and
14
C Dates rom Khirbat en-Nahas
,Jordan,,` .vtiqvit, 302 ,2004,: 865-9.
19
Bartlett, Biblical Sources or the Larly Iron Age in Ldom,` in art,
aov ava Moab, ed. Bienkowski, 14-15, c. also idem, 1he Ldomite King-List
o Genesis XXXVI. 31-39 and I Chron. I. 43-50,` ]1 n.s. 16 ,1965,: 301-14.
L. A. Knau ,Alter und lerkunt der edomitischen Konigliste Gen 36,31-39,`
Z.! 9 ,1985,: 245-53, een dates this list to the early Persian period.

Ldomite king, Kaushmalaku o Ldom ||avvvaa|`.
20
lrom that time
on, reerences to Ldom, or Ldomite kings, in Assyrian sources are
usual. 1he earliest local epigraphic material that can be conidently
dated is a royal seal impression rom Umm el-Biyara reerring to a
personality that has been identiied as Qos-Gabr, King o Ldom` ,qr.
gbr,vt/ àv,. 1his ruler is mentioned twice in Assyrian inscriptions
rom the reigns o Lsarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, which date to ca. 60
B.C. \hile this seenth century B.C. impression only proides us with a
terminus post quem or the site and its pottery, since Umm el-Biyara is
essentially a one-period site, the date o the settlement cannot be too
much earlier.
21
@<=F In summary, this examination o the maniold criticisms o the
political hypotheses that hae been proposed reeals some major laws
that cannot be ignored. 1hus, while \ahweh`s and Isaac`s statements
dealing with the primacy o Jacob oer Lsau can be analysed as
retrospectie iews o the geverat political relationship o the Israelites
with the Ldomites during the Iron Age, these erses do not necessarily
relect the original subject o the story o Jacob and Lsau, nor should
they be used to reconstruct the early history o Ldom, since they can be
later additions.
@<== +'$-:-#%2?.%$,-. 54;#,5'2'2! 1he second type o
explanation, which we hae called religious-cultic hypotheses, points
out that the tradition o brotherhood between Jacob and Lsau
originated in the similar cultic practices o Israelites and Ldomites.
lence it has been suggested that the two peoples shared a common
religious ramework, and in particular, that the gods \ahweh o
Israel,Judah and Qaus ,o:p, o Ldom shared analogous
characteristics.
22
Indeed, according to some biblical passages a Judaean
could worship Ldomite gods ,e.g., Amaziah, 2 Chron 25:14, and an
Ldomite worship \ahweh ,e.g., Doeg, 1 Sam 21:, and the probable
cases o Obed Ldom, 2 Sam 6:10-12, 1 Chron 13:13-14, 15:18, 21, 24-
25, 16:5, 38, 26:4, 8, 15, the post-exilic Barkos, Lzra 2:53, Neh :55, and
the less likely Kushaiah, 1 Chr 15:1,. More germane to the discussion
are citations that describe \ahweh as coming rom Ldom`, Seir`,
Mount Paran`, Bozrah` and 1eman` ,Deut 33:2, Judg 5:4, Isa 63:1,
lab 3:3,.
23
1o these one should add the amous inscriptions o
Kuntillet Ajrud, in the northeastern Sinai, seeral o which read ,brb
tvv ,\ahweh o 1eman,.
24
Do these reerences indicate an actual

20
A. Millard, Assyrian Inolement in Ldom,` in art, aov ava Moab,
ed. Bienkowski, 35-36.
21
Bienkowski, 1he Date o Sedentary Occupation in Ldom,` 99.
22
Bartlett, 1he Brotherhood o Ldom,` 6-, idem, \ahweh and Qaus: A
Response to Martin Rose ,]O1 4 |19|: 28-34,,` ]O1 5 ,198,: 35-38, M.
Rose, \ahweh in Israel - Qaus in Ldom,` ]O1 4 ,19,: 28-34, c. also L.
Zalcman, Shield o Abraham, lear o Isaac, Dread o Lsau,` Z.! 11
,2005,: 405-10.
23
C. L. L. Axelsson, 1be ora Ro.e v frov eir. tvaie. iv tbe i.tor, ava
1raaitiov. of tbe êger ava ovtberv ]oraav ,Coniectanea Biblica. Old 1estament
Series 25, Stockholm: Almqist & \iksell International, 198,, 48-65.
24
Z. Meshel, Kuntillet Ajrud,` .D 4: 103-09. Quite recently, V. Sasson
,An Ldomite Joban 1ext. \ith a Biblical Joban Parallel,` Z.! 11 ,2006,:
601-15, has suggested that an inscription written on a bowl unearthed at
lorat Uza, in the northern Nege, is part o an Ldomite ersion o the Book
o Job. According to Sasson, the inscription points to the existence o Y!

relationship between the Israelite and Ldomite cults at an early stage o
their histories Although it is clear that there was an Israelite coniction
that \ahweh belonged to, or originated rom, a region considered to be
part o the Ldomite kingdom, to what extent this belie was based on
real acts is still uncertain.
@<=> 1hese biblical passages are usually related to New Kingdom
Lgyptian inscriptions ound at Soleb ,Amenophis III,, Aksha and
Amara \est ,Ramses III,. In these inscriptions there occur two
Shasu` lands: ..v ,br ,\ahweh, and ..v .rr ,Seir,, purportedly located
in southern Palestine or Jordan.
25
loweer, this identiication is not
without its problems, especially since these same toponyms seem to
appear, in other Lgyptian sources, associated with places in Phoenicia
and Syria, a long way rom Ldom.
26
Speculation has also arisen about
our names purportedly preixed with the diine name in a
topographical list o Ramses II at Karnak, and in a list o Ramses III at
Medinet labu.
2
Nonetheless, it is diicult to draw any useul
conclusion rom these reerences, since they are dated seeral centuries
beore the written composition o the story o Jacob and Lsau. It is also
unclear whether these names reer to localities, deities or tribes.
@<=@ :'#:+*;5-.*$?&-:+*,#+4 54;#,5'2'2! 1hese argue that
some southern Jordanian groups ,tribes or clans, moed into the Nege
at some time, most probably beginning in the late eighth century B.C.,
and then settled the area. As a result o these moements, close
relationships were orged between the newcomers and the local Judaean
population. 1his would not only hae lay behind the composition o the
tradition o brotherhood between Lsau and Jacob, but also the
integration o other groups o non-Judaean stock into the genealogies
o Judaean clans and amilies settled in the Nege.
28
1his iew is based
on many biblical passages, oten diicult to interpret, that irst call
attention to the identiication o Ldom and Seir with the Nege, and
second, to the close kinship relationships between groups liing east
and west o the \adi Arabah.
@<=A Let us study the irst point in more detail. 1here are
geographical reerences in the lebrew Bible that seem to imply that the
Nege and southern Jordan were not considered separate regions. As
such, the \adi Arabah was not iewed as a political boundary. In the
Bible, Ldom and Seir appear seeral times in close connection, een in
parallel. More oten than not they are used as similar, i not identical,
geographical reerences. In the account o Lsau`s ospring, Seir is
repeatedly identiied with Ldom and iceersa ,Gen 36:8-9, 21,. 1he
same can be said or other biblical passages ,Gen 32:3, Num 24:18, Josh
24:4, Judg 5:4, 2 Chron 25:14, Isa 21:11, Lzek 35:15,. 1his has led to a
commonly held assumption, in late Jewish tradition as well as in
modern biblical scholarship, that Lsau and Seir were to be associated

worsh ip in Ldom.
25
R. Gieon, e. beaoviv. .bo.ov ae. aocvvevt. eg,tiev. ,Documenta et
Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 18, Leiden: Brill, 191,, Docs. 6a, 26-28 and 16a,
4-.
26
Bartlett, Ldom and the Ldomites, 9.
2
B. Oded, Lgyptian Reerences to the Ldomite Deity Qaus,` .varer.
|virer.it, evivar tvaie. 9-1 ,191,: 4-50.
28
Noth, . i.tor, of Pevtatevcbat 1raaitiov., 192-93, Bartlett, 1he Land o
Seir,` 15-18, A. Zeron, 1he Swansong o Ldom,` ]] 31 ,1980,: 190-92,
Axelsson, 1be ora Ro.e v frov eir, 0.

with the traditional territory o the kingdom o Ldom, that is, southern
Jordan.
@<=B loweer, the question is diicult to sole, since according to
other reerences, Seir and Ldom appear to be located in the Nege,
west o the \adi Arabah.
29
In Deuteronomy, places like Kadesh-
barnea, lormah ,both certainly located in the Nege,, Llath and Lzion-
geber seem to be located in, or by the way o, Mount Seir ,Deut 1:2, 44,
2:1-8, c. also 33:2,.
30
1he location o Seir is urther elucidated in the
summaries o the country conquered by Joshua, where Seir appears as
the southernmost boundary, i.e. the Nege, as opposed to the northern
limit at the Lebanon ,Josh 11:1, 12:, c. Josh 15:10,.
31
Simultaneously,
in other passages this same geographical location, the Nege, is
identiied as Ldom. 1he book o Numbers reers to Kadesh and Mount
lor as being in the border o the land o Ldom ,Num 20:16, 20:22-23,
21:4, 33:3, c. Judg 11:16-1,, and in the same context the battle at
lormah with the king o Arad, who lied in the Negeb` ,Num 21:1-
3,. Additionally, rom the descriptions o Judah`s borders, it is clear that
Ldom was located at the southern limit, unquestionably the Nege
,Num 34:3-5, Josh 15:1-4, 21-32, c. Josh 11:1, 12:,.
@<=( 1he second o our points is that many o the names o Lsau`s
and Seir`s descendants in Gen 36 reappear in the names o Judaean and
Simeonite amilies and clans liing in the Nege that appear in the book
o Chronicles. Much o this material comes directly rom Genesis.
Indeed, the Chronicler repeats, with some diergence, the lists o
descendants o Lsau and Seir in 1 Chron 1:35-54, though a lot o
inormation is presented here or the irst time.
@<=C lor our purposes, it is conenient to ocus on the genealogy o
the tribe o Judah, and especially on some groups said to hae settled in
the northern Nege. Prominent among these were the clans o the
Calebites and Jerahmeelites.
32
It is extremely diicult to disentangle the
genealogies o these Judaean clans, since sometimes parallel genealogical
lists appear to be the rule. 1he tribe o Simeon was situated among the
Judaean clans in the Nege, and apparently did not possess a speciic
territory.
33

29
Bartlett, 1he Land o Seir,` 5-, B. MacDonald, a.t of tbe ]oraav`:
1erritorie. ava ite. of tbe ebrer critvre. ,ASOR Books 6, Boston: ASOR,
2000,, 6-0, 185.
30
1he location o Kadesh, in or near Mount Seir, also occurs in the
account o the military campaign o the our Mesopotamian kings ,Gen 14:6-
,.
31
Similarly, the tradition o a campaign o the Simeonites to Mount Seir ,1
Chron 4:42-43, is more consistent with a geographical location in the Nege
than in southern Jordan.
32
Geographically, the Calebites are related to an area comprising the hill
country o Judah and the northern Nege, especially in the area o lebron
,Josh 14:6-15, 15:13-14, 21:12, c. Judg 1:10, and Debir ,Josh 15:15-19, Judg
1:11-15,. Caleb apparently gae his name to a district o the Nege, the Negeb
o Caleb` ,1 Sam 30:14,. Similarly, a district o this area is known as the
Negeb o the Jerahmeelites` ,1 Sam 2:10, 30:29,. C. \. Lein, lrom
Goshen to Gibeon` ,Joshua 10:41,: 1he Southern lrontier o the Larly
Monarchy,` Maarar 10 ,2003,: 204-11.
33
lrom the analysis o the town lists ,Josh 19:1-9, c. 1 Chron 4:28-32, Josh
15:20-30, it is eident that the tribe o Simeon was located in the western
Nege and part o the southern Shephelah, though Simeonites are also said to
hae settled in Mount Seir ,1 Chron 4:42,.

@<=D Let us now return to the question o the descendants o Lsau
and Seir mentioned in Gen 36. 1o be sure, many o their names seem to
reer to places or regions in southern Jordan. In some cases one can be
sure that an identiication in southern Jordan is highly likely, or
example, 1eman, Pinon , laynan,, Llah , Llath,, Shobal , Ain
Saubalah,. In other instances, it is just a matter o speculation.
34

@<=E Len so, or the most part, the names o Lsau`s and Seir`s
ospring in Gen 36 are paralleled in the names o the members o the
Judaean clans, as well as in some Simeonite names.
35
Lsau`s ospring
includes his son Korah ,. 5, 14,, who can be related to Calebite Korah
,1 Chron 2:43,, and maybe Leite Korah too ,e.g., Lxod 6:21, 24, Num
16:1, 26:58,. Lsau`s grandson Kenaz ,. 11, can be linked to Calebite
Kenaz ,1 Chron 4:15,. Another grandson o Lsau, Shammah ,. 13,, is
similar to Jerahmeelite Shammai ,1 Chron 2:28, 32, and two Calebites:
Shammai bev Rekem ,1 Chron 2:44-45, and Shammai bev Mered ,1
Chron 4:1,. Zerah is a third grandson o Lsau ,. 13, also the name o
the ather o an Ldomite king, . 33,, paralleled by Judah`s son Zerah ,1
Chron 2:4, 6, c. Gen 38:30, and Simeonite Zerah ,1 Chron 4:24, c.
Num 26:13,.
@<>F On the side o Seir`s descendants listed in Gen 36, his son
Shobal ,. 20, 23, has been related to Calebite,lurite Shobal ,1 Chron
2:50, 52,, who in another passage is listed among Judah`s sons ,1 Chron
4:1-2,. Seir`s grandson lori ,, . 22,, which by itsel is a name
strongly reminiscent o the lorite lineage, has been linked with Calebite
lur ,:,, ather o Uri ,:, ,1 Chron 2:19-20, 50, 4:1, 2 Chron 1:5, c.
Lxod 31:2, 35:30, 38:22,, who probably was the same lur that assisted
Moses ,Lx 1:10-12, 24:14,, howeer, in Num 13:5 a lori appears as a
Simeonite.
36
Another grandson o Seir, Ithran ,n, . 26,, bears a name
similar to Jether ,n, the Ishmaelite`, who was integrated into the nets
o the Judaean ospring o Ram ,1 Chron 2:1, c. 2 Sam 1:25, 1 Kgs
2:5, 32,. lis name also parallels Jerahmeelite Jether ,1 Chron 2:32,,
Calebite Jether ,1 Chron 4:1,, the Ithrites ,nn, sons o Shobal ,1
Chron 2:53,, and the town Jattir ,Josh 21:14 etc.,
3
Another three o
Seir`s grandsons are Manahath ,. 23,, reminiscent o lurite`
Menuhot ,1 Chron 2:52,, Onam ,. 23,, reminiscent o Jerahmeelite

34
See B. Moritz, Ldomitische Genealogien,` Z.! 44 ,1926,: 81-93, L. A.
Knau-Belleri, Ldom: 1he Social and Lconomic listory,` in Yov batt ôt
.bb .t of tbe ]oraav`, 188-94. or av aovite, ed. Ldelman, 100-0, MacDonald, a
35
lor the next discussion, see L. Meyer, Die .raetitev vva ibre
âcbbabr.tavve ,Alltestamentlische Untersuchungen, lalle, 1906,, 328-54,
Bartlett, 1he Land o Seir,` 2-5, idem, aov ava tbe aovite., 88, idem, Ldom
in listory,` 288, M. \eippert, aov: tvaiev vva Materiatiev vr Ce.cbicbte aer
aoviter avf Crvva .cbriftticber vva arcbaotogi.cber Qvettev ,Ph.D. diss., 1bingen,
191,, 230-55, Axelsson, 1be ora Ro.e v frov eir, 1-3, G. N. Knoopers,
Intermarriage, Social Complexity, and Lthnic Diersity in the Genealogy o
Judah,` ] 120 ,2001,: 23-28, idem, Great Among his Brothers,` but \ho is
le leterogeneity in the Composition o Judah,` ] 3 ,2001,. Since, in Gen
36, the lists o Ldomite chietains ,. 15-19, 40-43, and lorite chietains ,.
29-30, are usually repetitions o the names o the descendants o Lsau and Seir,
we will not cite them.
36
Also, the name lur appears as the name o a Midianite king ,Num 31:8,
Josh 13:21,.
3
In addition, Moses` ather-in-law was sometimes called Jether, a orm o
the name Jethro ,Lxod 4:18, c. Lxod 3:1, 18:1,.

Onam ,1 Chron 2:26, 28,, and Judah`s son Onan ,1 Chron 2:3, c. Gen
38:4, 46:12, Num 26:19,, Aran ,. 28,, similar to Jerahmeelite Oren ,1
Chron 2:25,.
@<>= 1he Chronicler also lists dierse groups that are loosely related
to Judah`s genealogy. Among them are the Kenizites and Kenites. 1he
Kenizites were consistently linked with the Judaean clan o the Calebites
and with the Ldomites ,as we hae seen, through Lsau`s grandson
Kenaz,. 1hus, outside the Chronicler`s account there is one tradition in
which Caleb son o Jephunneh is called a Kenizite ,Josh 14:6, 14, c.
Num 32:12,, though in other places he is presented as brother o Kenaz
,Josh 15:1, Judg 1:13, 3:9, 12,. A second tradition, howeer, portrays
Caleb as among Judah`s members, without mentioning any Kenizite
connection ,Num 13:6, 34:19,. 1hese two traditions are apparently
relected in the Chronicler`s lists, where more than one Caleb seems to
appear: there is a Caleb bev lezron ,1 Chron 2:9, 18, c. 1 Chron 2:9,
where Caleb is called Chelubai,, a Caleb brother o Shuhah ,1 Chron
4:11,, and a Caleb bev Jephunneh ,1 Chron 4:15,. 1he latter is listed
ater the lineage o the Kenizites ,1 Chron 4:12-13,, and one o his
grandsons is called Kenaz ,1 Chron 4:15,.
@<>> Similarly, the Kenites seem to hae had both Judaean and
Midianite backgrounds. In the ormer case, Kenites are listed ater the
sons o the Calebite lurites` ,1 Chron 2:55,. 1he Kenites ,o:pn,
were probably associated with the descendants o Cain ,:pn, Gen 4:1-
25, 15:19, Num 24:21-22, Judg 4:11,,
38
and in some texts, the Kenites
are seen aorably by the biblical authors ,Judg 4:1, 5:24, 1 Sam 15:6,.
Moses` ather-in-law, ariously named lobab, Jethro and Reuel, is
sometimes called a Kenite ,with the name lobab: Judg 1:16, 4:11,, but
also a Midianite ,with the name Jethro: Lxod 3:1, 18:1, with the name
Reuel: Num 10:29,. 1his probably indicates that Kenites and Midianites,
i not the same group, were at least strongly related. Some relationships
with the Ldomites might hae existed as well, since Reuel is also the
name o one o Lsau`s sons ,Gen 36:4, 10, 13,. In geographical terms,
the Kenites seem to hae settled in the northern Nege.
39
Although the
Chronicler does not relate the Midianites to the Israelites in kinship
terms directly, some connections exist. 1o the instance o Moses`
ather-in-law, one could add the case o Lphah, a name with Midianite
reminiscences ,Gen 25:4, Isa 60:6,, who appears both as a concubine o
Caleb ,1 Chron 2:46, and as ospring o Calebite Jahdai ,1 Chron 2:4,.
1he homeland o the Midianites is not precise, though scholars hae

38
Knoopers, Intermarriage,` 26. 1he suggestion that the ospring o Cain
was associated with the Nege area or southern Jordan is supported by the act
that in Balaam`s last oracle ,Num 24:21-22,, the Kenites, here described as
descendants o Cain, are listed ater Ldom and Amalek. Balaam`s words,
enduring is your dwelling place, and your nest is set in the rock`, is
reminiscent o the prophets` descriptions o the liing place o the Ldomites,
who dwell in the clets o the rock` ,Jer 49:16,, and whose nest is high as the
eagle` ,Ob 1:3-4,. An interesting point in these contexts is that the rock`
,, probably reers to Sela in Ldom, c. B. lalpern, Kenites,` .D 4: 18,
\. M. lanwar, Sela ,Place,,` .D 5: 103-4.
39
According to the book o Judges, lobab`s sons inhabited the Arad area
,Judg 1:16,. In Samuel, Daid`s raids rom Ziklag attacked an area known as
the Negeb o the Kenites` ,1 Sam 2:10, c. 30:29 M1, Judg 4:11,. Another
tradition, howeer, describes leber the Kenite pitching his tent in Kadesh
,Judg 4:11,, probably the Kadesh-barnea o other passages.

located it ariously in southern Jordan and northwestern Arabia.
40

@<>@ 1he Amalekites were the last group related to the Ldomites,
and almost certainly liing in the Nege area as well. In Gen 36, Amalek
appears as the grandson o Lsau, and son o Lliphaz and 1imna ,. 12,,
howeer, no relationship with Judaean clans are present in the Bible.
1he Bible portrays the Amalekites as nomadic tribes liing or moing
through ast territories.
41
Despite the presence o Amalekite groups in
the Nege and central Palestine, the Bible does not perceie them in
riendly terms. 1o the contrary, memories o Amalekite attacks during
the Lxodus led to a permanent enmity and antagonism ,Lx 1:14-16,
Deut 25:1, 19, 1 Sam 15:2-3,. Due to this, and,or because o other
reasons as well, the Amalekites were placed under a permanent ban,
despite their ailiation with the Nege as much as the other groups
discussed aboe.
@<>A More examples o parallelism in the genealogical narraties
could be mentioned, but these should suice. \hat is clear rom the
texts discussed aboe is that in biblical times a strong relationship
existed between groups liing on both sides o the \adi Arabah. 1he
biblical authors expressed their iews in terms o the language o
kinship, that is to say, they created bonds o kinship between the
descendants o Lsau and Seir and those o the Judaean and Simeonite
groups.
@<>B All this is potentially interesting, but remains conusing and
imprecise. \e need to place this genealogical material within its
historically speciic context. In my opinion, these genealogies must be
iewed in the light o the sociopolitical situation in the Nege during
the Late Iron Age, and more speciically to the moements o
semipastoral groups between southern Jordan and the Nege at that
time. Current archaeological eidence, and the knowledge o how the
ideology o kinship and segmentation unctioned in ancient societies,
support this conclusion. loweer, a question remains as to when the
moements o these groups into the Nege began. In order to respond
this question more adequately, we will discuss the current data
concerning Ldomite material culture in the Nege. \e will reiew then
the role o kinship, segmentation and orality in ancient society, as
understood by current anthropological research.
-"< '6#&-,' &*,'+-*$ .%$,%+' -0 ,5' 0':'"
A<= Oer the last decades, the Nege has been one o the most
intensiely studied regions in present-day Israel. Numerous sites hae
been excaated and sureyed here, and hae reealed a lourishing
community during the Late Iron Age. 1he history o these sites goes
back to the Larly Iron Age, when a phase o initial settlement brought

40
L. A. Knau, Miaiav: |vter.vcbvvgev vr Ce.cbicbte Pata.tiva vva ôraarabiev.
av vae ae. 2.]abrtav.eva. r.Cbr. ,ADPV, \iesbaden: larrassowitz, 1988,, 1-6.
41
Amalekites are told to hae been ound in the Sinai ,Num 1:8, c. Deut
25:1,, the Nege in general ,Num 13:29, 1 Sam 15:, 2:8, c. 1 Chron 4:42-
43, here Mount Seir` probably denoting the Nege,, and speciically at or near
Kadesh ,Gen 14:,, the Nahal Besor ,1 Sam 30:10 .,, lorma ,Num 14:43-45,
c. Deut 1:44,, the Arad neighborhood ,Judg 1:16,, the region o Gaza ,Judg
6:4,, the city o Amalek` ,1 Sam 15:5,, and Ziklag ,1 Sam 30:1,, the last six
locations probably in the northern and northwestern Nege, and also at the
Jordan Valley ,Judg 3:13, 6:33, and Lphraim ,Judg 12:15,. C. G. L. Mattingly,
Amalek ,Person,,` .D 1: 169-1.

seeral medium and small-size sites into existence. loweer, the climax
o Nege settlement took place during the late tenth or ninth century
B.C. ,according to the dierse chronologies employed,, and especially
during the eighth century B.C., when the Judaean state established
seeral administratie-military centers in the area. 1hese settlements
were concentrated in the Beersheba alley ,northern Nege,, with only
a ew sites south o this zone.
42
One o the most signiicant eatures o
these sites is the appearance o a material culture ery similar to that
ound in contemporary settlements o southern Jordan, considered to
be the traditional homeland o the Ldomites. 1his material culture,
which began to appear in the late eighth century B.C., and which lasted
until the early sixth century B.C., was mainly composed o pottery and
cultic objects, plus a number o inscriptions with Ldomite names.
43

A<> 1he most notorious component o this material assemblage is
Ldomite pottery, a mixture o distinctie ware types, ound and
manuactured in both southern Jordan and the Nege. 1his ware has
traditionally, but perhaps misleadingly, been speciically associated with
the kingdom o Ldom.
44
Vessels with Ldomite characteristics hae
been ound in arying amounts at seeral Nege sites, especially
throughout the Beersheba alley ,see lig. 1,: 1el Malhata, 1el Arad,
Beersheba ,1el Shea,, 1el Ira, 1el Masos, 1el Aroer, lorat Qitmit
and lorat Radum.
45
1hey also occur at sites in the northwestern
Nege, such as 1el Sera, 1ell Jemmeh and 1el laror. In the central
Nege, Ldomite pottery appears at Kadesh-barnea ,Ain el-Qudeirat,,
lorat Rogem and Metsad La`nah. In the icinity o the \adi Arabah,
it shows up at Ln lazea and Giat lazea.
46

42
linkelstein, irivg ov tbe rivge, 139-53, P. Bienkowski and L. an der
Steen, 1ribes, 1rade, and 1owns: A New lramework or the Late Iron Age in
Southern Jordan and the Nege,` .OR 323 ,2001,: 21-2, Z. lerzog, 1he
lortress Mound at 1el Arad: An Interim Report,` 1. 29 ,2002,: 94-102.
43
See linkelstein, ibid, 139-44, Bartlett, Ldomites and Idumaeans,` PQ
131 ,1999,: 102-06, MacDonald, a.t of tbe ]oraav`, 18, I. Beit-Arieh, 1he
Ldomites in Cisjordan,` in Yov batt ôt .bbor av aovite, ed. Ldelman, 33-39,
idem, Judean-Ldomite Rialry in the Nege,` Qaavoviot 36-126 ,2003,: 66-6
,lebrew,.
44
M. l. Oakeshott, 1he Ldomite Pottery,` in Miaiav, Moab ava aov: 1be
i.tor, ava .rcbaeotog, of ate rove ava rov .ge ]oraav ava ôrtb!e.t .rabia,
eds. J. l. A. Sawyer and D. J. A. Clines ,JSO1Sup 24, Sheield: JSO1 Press,
1983,, 53-64, L. Mazar, Ldomite Pottery at the Lnd o the Iron Age,` ] 35
,1985,: 253-69.
45
I. Beit-Arieh, 1he Lxcaations at 1el Mal!ata-An Interim Report,`
Qaavoviot 115 ,1998,: 35-36 ,lebrew,, idem, "orat Radum,` ^. 4:
1555, L. Singer-Aitz, Arad: 1he Iron Age Pottery Assemblages,` 1. 29
,2002,: 184-92, idem, Beersheba- A Gateway Community in Southern Arabian
Long-Distance 1rade in the Lighth Century B.C.L.,` 1. 26 ,1999,: 33-36, L.
lreud, 1he Iron Age,` in 1et ra: . trovgbota iv tbe ibticat êger, ed. I. Beit-
Arieh ,MSIA 15, 1el Ai: Institute o Archaeology, 1999,, 226-2, V. lritz
and A. Kempinski, rgebvi..e aer .v.grabvvgev avf aer #irbet etM$%$ ;1&t M%'(')
121:, ol. 1, 1etbava ,\iesbaden: larrassowitz, 1983,, 129, A. Biran and
R. Cohen, Aroer in the Nege,` 15 ,1981,: 265 ,lebrew,, L. lreud and I.
Beit-Arieh, Pottery,` in "orrat Qitvit: .v aovite brive iv tbe ibticat êger, ed.
I. Bei itute o Arc t-Arieh ,MSIA 11, 1el Ai: Inst haeology, 1995,, 209-5.
46
L. D. Oren, laror, 1el,` ^. 2: 584, idem, Sera, 1el,`
^. 4: 1333, Bartlett, Ldomites and Idumaeans,` 104, R. Cohen and
\. \israel, 1he Iron Age lortress at Ln "a)ea,` . 58 ,1995,: 224-28, R.

A<@ Other archaeological inds, seemingly o a religious nature, also
point to possible Ldomite presence or inluence. At Ln lazea
,Stratum IV,, a major ortiied site at the junction o \adi Zin and the
northern Arabah alley, a small structure identiied as a shrine was
uncoered, and next to it, a aissa ,a cultic pit, containing sixty-seen
clay objects, that were presumably used or cultic purposes.
4
Similar
essels hae been ound at lorat Qitmit, with incised inscriptions
bearing Ldomite names.
48
Both places hae been called Ldomite`
shrines,
49
though other scholars hae recently denied the Ldomite
character o these assemblages.
50
In addition, ostraca, incised
inscriptions and a seal relating to Ldom or Ldomites, were ound in
other Nege sites, e.g., 1el Aroer, 1el Ira, 1el Malhata, 1el Arad and
lorat Uza.
51

A<A 1he presence o these cultural traits in the Nege has gien rise
to a number o hypotheses. Some scholars hae pointed out that the
Ldomite cultural traits ollowed on the heels o Ldomite territorial
expansion in the area.
52
1he adherents to this theory argue, on the basis
o seeral biblical passages, that the Ldomites exercised at least some
degree o military control in the Nege ,c. 2 Kgs 16:6, 2 Chron 28:16-
18,. 1o be sure, in some locations, Ldomite pottery constitutes an
important part o the entire pottery assemblage ,1el Malhata, lorat
Qitmit, Kadesh-barnea,, and in others, purportedly Ldomitizing cult
actiities are present as major eatures ,lorat Qitmit, Ln lazea,. But
in the remaining Nege sites, only a ew sherds o Ldomite type, or a
ew Ldomite inscriptions, testiy to the presence o Ldomite people.
\hile destruction leels, a major eature o military campaigns, are
present in seeral Late Iron Nege sites, their connection to the alleged
military campaigns o the Ldomites is in most cases hypothetical.
A<B More tempting is the suggestion by other researchers that the
presence o Ldomite material culture west o the Arabah relects either
a cultural phenomenon or the trade patterns o that time.
53
It is
important to note that the occurrence o these traits is not een in all
the Nege sites, with their distribution more typical o cultural
expansion or commercial actiity than it is o military occupation. In
act, the distribution o the Ldomite archaeological traits suggests that
the Arabah alley was not a cultural border. In this regard, P.

Cohen, Lxcaations at Kadesh-barnea 196-198,` . 44 ,1981,: 100, R.
Cohen and R. Cohen-Amin, .vcievt etttevevt. of tbe êger igbtava.. Vol. 2: 1be
rov .ge ava tbe Per.iav Perioa. ,IAA Reports No. 20, Jerusalem: Israel
Antiquities Authority, 2004,, 13, J. Gunneweg, 1. Beier, U. Diehl, D.
Lambrecht and l. Mommsen, Ldomite`, Negeite` and Midianite` Pottery
rom the Nege Desert and Jordan: Instrumental Neutron Actiation Analysis
Resul ,: 240, 1able 2. ts,` .rcbaeovetr, 33 ,1991
4
israel, ibid. Cohen and \
48
Beit-Arieh, "orrat Qitvit.
49
35. Cohen and \israel, 1he Iron Age lortress at Ln "a)ea,` 223-
50
i and an der Steen, 1ribes, 1rade, and 1owns,` 28. Bienkowsk
51
C. n. 43.
52
I. Beit-Arieh and B. Cresson, "orat Usa: A lortiied Outpost on the
Lastern Nege Border,` . 54 ,1991,: 134, Beit-Arieh, 1he Ldomites in
Cisjordan`, idem, Judean-Ldomite Rialry in the Nege`, D. V. Ldelman,
Ldom: A listorical Geography,` in Yov batt ôt .bbor av aovite, ed.
Ldelm sion`. an, 1-11, Lindsay, Ldomite \estward Lxpan
53
Mazar, Ldomite Pottery,` 269, linkelstein, irivg ov tbe rivge, 140-41,
Singer-Aitz, Beersheba,` 53-54.

Bienkowski and L. an der Steen hae recently proposed that the
mixture and ariety in the pottery assemblages o the Late Iron Nege
and southern Jordan relect the constant moements and interactions o
pastoral groups looking or grazing grounds.
54
An important
supplementary point raised by these and other scholars is the inaccuracy
o the term Ldomite pottery, coined in the early years o biblical
archaeology`. 1he typological diersity and geographical distribution o
this ware does not it with an exclusie ethnic group.
55
In my opinion,
these are the most adequate working hypotheses or analyzing both the
material culture o the Nege and the traditions o Jacob and Lsau.
"< H-025-;) 2':&'0,*,-#0 *06 #+*$-,4 -0 *0.-'0,
2#.-',-'2
B<= In the aboe discussion we hae tried to elucidate the
historical` acts behind the story o the brotherhood between Jacob
and Lsau. loweer, seeral questions remain: why and how did the
moements o pastoral tribes between southern Jordan and the Nege
contribute to the deelopment o this tradition In other words, why
and how did the biblical authors translate` the sociopolitical situation
o the Late Iron Age Nege into the language o kinship 1he answers
to these inquiries lie in the study o the ideological ramework that was
common in the Judaean society during the Late Iron Age. \ithin this
ramework, three analytic concepts are central: kinship, segmentation
and orality. 1he ollowing discussion will deal with these issues, as
elucidated in archaeological research.
B<> H-025-;! 1he biblical text, especially the book o Genesis, is
strongly embedded with the language o kinship. Much o its narratie
uses kinship relationships as terminology as well as a subject. In act, all
the characters are related by kinship. In this sense, the accounts o
Genesis are primarily amily stories.
56
1he unction o kinship in the
ideology o the lebrew Bible is paralleled by what is known in other
ancient and ethnographic societies.
B<@ \ith the beginnings o Anthropology as an autonomous
discipline, and with the initial speculations o l. S. Maine and l.
Morgan in the second hal o the nineteenth century A.D., the analysis
o kinship constituted the main ield o study -especially in those
contemporary societies considered primitie`. Gien the bias against
historicity in many o these analyses, postulates concerning primitie`
societies were also considered pertinent or ancient ones. 1he role o
kinship in these kinds o societies became crucial or the unctionalist
perspectie, especially in the writings o the British scholar A. R.
Radclie-Brown. According to him, the main characteristic o
primitie` societies was that the indiidual behaior was regulated by
kinship rules. Moreoer, kinship obligations in primitie` communities
guided actiities that are ormally separated in modern societies into the
political, economic and religious ields.
5
1he assumptions o

54
ski and an der Steen, 1ribes, 1rade, and 1owns,` 36. Bienkow
55
Ibid, 39.
56
R. B. Robinson, Literary lunctions o the Genealogies o Genesis,`
CQ 48 ,1986,: 595-608, D. L. Petersen, Genesis and lamily Values,` ]
124 ,2005,: 5-23.
5
A. R. Radclie-Brown, 1he Study o Kinship Systems,` in trvctvre ava
vvctiov iv Privitire ociet, ,London: Cohen, 1952,.

unctionalism deeloped into an almost generally accepted
anthropological belie, namely, that social institutions in ancient
societies were embedded` into the nets o kinship practices. \hat is
more, unctionalist analyses iewed social systems in an ineitable state
o equilibrium, inherent to themseles. In this sense, kinship, as a
central organizing concept or society, imposed the boundaries inside
which indiiduals behae, thus creating the consensus and social order
necessary or the reproduction o the social system.
B<A 1his iew, o course, was not without its critics, especially those
who pointed out that the indiidual could not hae been the mere
passie object o the lineage.
58
1his type o criticism led to other
suggestions, that diminished the leading role o kinship oer other
systems, particularly economic ones. \et or many theorists, kinship
continued to be a central actor in primitie` and ancient societies.
1his is especially true o approaches that ocused attention on the
ormation and deelopment o primary state societies. \hether rom
neo-eolutionist or non-eolutionist perspecties, these anthropological
studies hae demonstrated that kinship remains at the center o the
debate, whether in the economic,
59
juridical or political realms.
60

B<B 2':&'0,*,-#0! lor our purposes, analysis o kin-based segments
is particularly important. In their landmark study on Arican political
systems, M. lortes and L. L. Lans-Pritchard oered one o the most
detailed inestigations concerning the relationship between political
organization and kinship in the so-called primitie` societies.
61
1hey
placed Arican political systems into two undamental categories:
primitie states, which possessed centralized authority and
goernmental institutions, and stateless societies, whose organization
was regulated by segmentary lineage systems. In the latter case, political
organization is regarded as a state o equilibrium between a number o
opposing segments, determined by their lineage and location. 1hese
concepts were widely deeloped in the classic work by Lans-Pritchard
on the Nuer people o Sudan.
62
1his stateless community was organized
into tribes and dierent leels o tribal segments based on lineage, that
operated according to the ission-usion principle. In other words,
members o ones segment will wage war against same-leel adjacent
segments, and will join orces with the members o same-leel adjacent
segments against higher-leel segments. 1his segmentary model has
been utilized to describe similar stateless societies in Arica and the
Middle Last.
63

58
1hus, e.g., L. R. Leach, Potiticat ,.tev. of igbtava vrva. . tva, of Kacbiv
ociat trvctvre ,London: London School o Lconomics and Political Science,
1954,.
59
.ge covovic. ,London: 1aistock, 194,. M. Sahlins, tove
60
L. R. Serice, Origiv. of tbe tate ava Ciritiatiov ,New \ork: Norton,
195,.
61
lortes and Lans-Pritchard, Introduction,` in .fricav Potiticat ,.tev.,
eds. lortes and Lans-Pritchard ,London: Oxord Uniersity Press, 1940,, 1-
23.
62
Lans-Pritchard, 1be ^ver: . De.critiov of tbe Moae. of irebooa ava Potiticat
v.titvtiov. of a îtotic 1ribe ,Oxord: Clarendon Press, 1940,.
63
See the reiew o S. Batu, 1he Segmentary Lineage System: A
Reappraisal,` in Cbavgivg ôvaa. iv a Cbavgivg !orta, eds. J. Ginat and A. M.
Khazano ,Brighton and Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 1998,, 94-123, with
releant literature.

B<( loweer, the prolieration o this line o argument has led
seeral scholars to become suspicious about the applicability o lortes
and Lans-Pritchard`s model to other societies.
64
In act, research has
shown that the reality is much more aried than the model assumes,
particularly with respect to the degree o uniormity between the seeral
segments. 1he main controersy has neertheless ocused on the
relationship between the territorial system and kinship. lirst, because
contrary to the assumptions o seeral scholars, segmentation and
unilateral descent are not identical principles, gien that the ormer can
be structured by principles not restricted to the rules o kinship.
Second, it has been obsered that, in daily practice, indiiduals normally
do not behae in the manner anticipated by the kinship ideology they
purportedly ollow.
65
Actually, seeral ambiguities arise out o the act
that both systems ,segmentation and unilateral descent, originate in
dierent ields with dierent unctions. 1hey are, howeer, commonly
aggregated within an enormous theoretical combo. As a result, these
systems are ery oten conused as one.
66

B<C lor our purposes, the signiicance o kinship in its role as an
ideological actor operating at the leel o territorial segments should be
emphasized. In societies where kinship has a predominant unction, the
principles o descent operate in two ways: managing the construction o
real genealogies and proiding a notion o common descent. 1he latter
creates a bond that coalesces the members o the society, thereby ideally
legitimizing relationships between groups. Let us now turn our attention
to the latter instance.
B<D Lthnographic studies in contemporary pastoral groups hae
shown that indiiduals within them isualize the local political and
geographical situations in terms o kinship relations. 1hey speciically
conceptualize territorial organizations as groups inside which people are
united by agnatic descent. Middle Lastern Bedouin, or example, usually
beliee that groups descend rom a common ancestor who acquired the
rights to the land they occupy. Moreoer, when two or more groups
hae a common interest, especially due to geographical proximity or
joint use o the land, they are usually regarded genealogically related. It
is in this sense that political and geographical relationships are
expressed through the kinship language. 1hereore any change in the
local state o aairs oten brings about a change in the terminology o
kinship. 1his is why recently arried neighbors are considered, through
the language o kinship, as relaties` within ew generations.
6
1he
reader must bear in mind, howeer, that the relationship between
location and kinship is not always as direct as this ideal model depicts.
B<E Len so, segmentary organization proides a social ramework
that ensures co-operation between groups inhabiting expansie

64
L.g., l. Munson Jr., On the Irreleance o the Segmentary Linage
Model in the Moroccan Ri,` .vericav .vtbrootogi.t 91 ,1989,: 386-400.
65
L. Marx, 1he 1ribe as a Unit o Subsistence: Nomadic Pastoralism in
the Middle Last,` .vericav .vtbrootogi.t 9 ,19,: 343-63, Munson,
Rethinking Gellner`s Segmentary Analysis o Morocco`s Ain Atta,` Mav
,N.S., 28 ,1993,: 26-80, idem, Reply to Gellner, Segmentation,` ]ovrvat of tbe
Ro,at .vtbrootogicat v.titvte 1 ,1995,: 829-32.
66
Batu, 1he Segmentary Lineage System: A Reappraisal,` 95.
6
Marx, 1he 1ribe as a Unit o Subsistence,` 351-53, A. Khazano,
ôvaa. ava tbe Ovt.iae !orta ,2nd ed., Madison: 1he Uniersity o \isconsin
Press, 1994,, 141-43.

territories without a centralized goernment. In those cases in which
nomadic groups are distributed in or migrate throughout discontinuous
territories, kinship proides a stable institution that enables segments to
organize themseles in a lexible way.
68
1o a large extent, the
segmentary orm o social organization helps to sort out problems like
ecological diersity, transportation issues and diersity o political
conditions. One special issue or members o segments distributed in a
territorially discontinuous manner is that the segmentary organization
proides access to pastures o distant regions where members o the
same segment are located, as well as to their brides.
69

B<=F In the lebrew Bible, kinship and political terminologies, which
rom a modern perspectie constitute dierentiated spheres, appear as
separated and interchangeable ields. 1he biblical text presents Israelite
society as composed o units based largely on kinship links. Ideally, the
largest territorial unit was the onc or nob ,tribe`,, which was
composed o seeral nccb ,sing. or clan`,. 1he basic unit was the
n nn ,amily, lit. ather`s house`,, an extended amily comprising all
the descendants o a single liing ancestor in a single lineage.
0

B<== 1he importance o kinship and segmentation in the lebrew
Bible can be paralleled by what is known o Iron Age Jordanian
societies. Only recently, scholars hae come to recognize that the
ancient kingdoms o Ammon, Moab and Ldom were societies in which
the political structure was heaily dependant on kin-based lineages and
segmentary systems. In addition, these scholars hae also highlighted
the important role o pastoral tribes in their territories.
1
1he
importance o kin-based lineages and segmentation increased rom
north to south, as the terrain became rougher and the weather arider.

68
P. C. Salzman, Does Complementary Opposition Lxist,` .vericav
.vtbrootogi.t 80 ,198,: 53-0, idem, Ideology and Change in Middle Lastern
Societies,` Mav ,N.S., 13 ,198,: 62.
69
L. Gellner, Segmentation: Reality or Myth,` ]ovrvat of tbe Ro,at
.vtbrootogicat v.titvte 1 ,1995,: 822, 825.
0
C. U. \ol, 1erminology o Israel`s 1ribal Organization,` ] 65
,1946,: 45-49, C. J. l. \right, lamily,` .D 2: 61-62, K. an der 1oorn,
aviti, Retigiov iv ab,tovia, ,ria ava .raet. Covtivvit, ava Cbavge iv tbe orv. of
Retigiov. ife ,SlCANL , Leiden, New \ork, Koln: Brill, 1996,, 190-205, L.
G. Perdue, J. Blenkinsopp, J. J. Collins and C. Meyers, avitie. iv .vcievt .raet
,Louisille: \estminster John Knox Press, 199,.
1
L. A. Knau, 1he Cultural Impact o Secondary State lormation: 1he
Cases o the Ldomites and Moabites,` in art, aov ava Moab, ed. Bienkowski,
4-54, O. LaBianca and R. \. \ounker, 1he Kingdoms o Ammon, Moab
and Ldom: 1he Archaeology o Society in Late Bronze,Iron Age 1ransjordan
,ca. 1400-500 BCL,,` in 1be .rcbaeotog, of ociet, iv tbe ot, ava, ed. 1. L. Ley
,lirst paperback ed., London: Leicester Uniersity Press, 1995,, 399-415, 590-
94, LaBianca, Salient leatures o Iron Age 1ribal Kingdoms,` in .vcievt
.vvov, eds. B. MacDonald and R. \ounker ,SlCANL 1, Leiden: Brill,
1999,, 19-29, Bienkowski and an der Steen, 1ribes, 1rade, and 1owns`, B.
Routledge, Lolution is as listory Does: On State lormation in Iron Age
1ransjordan,` in Ove vvarea Year. of .vericav .rcbaeotog, iv tbe Miaate a.t.
Proceeaivg. of tbe .vericav cboot. of Orievtat Re.earcb Cevtevviat Cetebratiov,
!a.bivgtov, DC, .rit 2000, eds. D. R. Clark and V. l. Mathews ,Boston:
ASOR, 2003,, 231-61, B. \. Porter, Authority, Polity, and 1enuous Llites in
Iron Age Ldom ,Jordan,,` Ofora ]ovrvat of .rcbaeotog, 23 ,2004,: 33-95. C.
also N. \azana, Naties, Immigrants and the Biblical Perception o Origins
in listorical 1imes,` 1. 32 ,2005,: 220-44.

1he kingdom o Ldom was thereore the last Iron Age Jordanian polity
to deelop, and was the most tribalized` society o the three. By the
same token, in Ldom, pastoralism and semi-pastoralism seem to hae
predominated as economic actiities, making mobile tribes a signiicant
actor, i not the most important actor in the area.
B<=> #+*$-,4! \hateer unction the segmentation principle perorms
in ethnographic and ancient societies, the orm in which it appears in
the political-ideological sphere depends heaily on the orm o its
transmission to the members o the society. It is in this sense that the
topic o orality is a central point in the study o segmented lineages.
Interest on this issue arose irstly in the ield o the classical studies, and
the study o orality rapidly became a major point o inestigation in the
anthropology o contemporary tribal societies.
2
Contrary to the
presuppositions o earlier generations o scholars, it became obious to
modern anthropologists that the pre-literary olklore, the oral
expressions o ancient societies, are not identical to written texts, since
orality possesses ery dierent eatures and is goerned by its own,
distinctie rules.
B<=@ 1here is no room here or a comprehensie account o the
characteristics o the oral tradition, een so, some major points must be
highlighted. lirst, orality lacks the character o permanence that literacy
possesses. 1his transitory` character is grounded on the act that oral
olklore relects the cultural alues o a gien society, that is to say, it is
not a consequence o a useless curiosity or the past. \hen the object
o the narratie no longer corresponds to the real experience o the
listeners, its meaning and,or content changes or disappears.
3

lurthermore, in these sorts o oral accounts there are as many minor
ariants with respect to a myth as there are repetitions o it, because the
contents are re-organized rather than replaced by new material.
4
\et
this does not mean that oral olklore is always about iction. lor
instance, in Arican oral epics there is an amalgam o myth and
historical acts in which the main characters and basic episodes are
oten historical, especially those dating to the last two centuries, while
the story as a whole may be ictitious.
5

B<=A Already in the early days o modern biblical scholarship, the
importance o pre-literary traditions in the composition o the lebrew
Bible was recognized ,l. Gunkel, M. Noth,, howeer, only since the
second hal o the twentieth century C.L., under the inluence o studies

2
C. the important works o A. B. Lord, 1be ivger of 1ate. ,larard
Studies in Comparatie Literature, Cambridge, MA: larard Uniersity Press,
1960,, M. Parry, 1be Ma/ivg of overic 1er.e: 1be Cottectea Paer. of Mitvav Parr,,
ed. A. Parry ,Oxord: Clarendon Press, 191,, J. Goody and I. \att, 1he
Consequences o Literacy,` in iterac, iv 1raaitiovat ocietie., ed. J. Goody
,Cambridge: Cambridge Uniersity Press, 1968,, J. Goody, 1be ogic of !ritivg
ava tbe Orgaviatiov of ociet, ,Cambridge: Cambridge Uniersity Press, 1986,, \.
J. Ong, Oratit, ava iterac,. 1be 1ecbvotogiivg of tbe !ora ,Lnglish original,
London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1982, Spanish trans., Buenos Aires: lCL, 199,.
1he merits and limitations o these early studies are summarized by \. A.
loley, .vtbrootogicat ivgvi.tic.: .v vtroavctiov ,Repr., Oxord: Blackwell, 2002,,
41-34.
3
iterac,, 53-54. Ong, Oratit, ava
4
Ibid, 4-48, 143.
5
M. M. Mulokozi, 1he Arican Lpic Controersy. \ith Reerence to the
Lnanga` Lpic 1radition o the Bahaya,` abvta 43 ,2002,: 11, S. M. Ndege,
Myth` as a listorical Basis o the Meru lolktales,` abvta 43 ,2002,: 35-5.

on orality in other ields o study, has research on orality in biblical
studies become a major issue.
6
1hese and other researches hae
acknowledged that ancient Israel was largely non-literate, as in the case
o other ancient Near Lastern societies. Literacy, it is argued, was
conined to the narrow world o palace and temple scribes, and the thin
circle around them. 1he extent o the deelopment o literacy has been
generally paralleled to the deelopment o state institutions in Israel,
which acquired their ullest orm during the late Judaean monarchy
,eighth-seenth centuries B.C.,

B<=B \hile the analysis o orality is a ield in its own right, or the
purposes o this paper, we will examine the characteristics o oral
genealogies. Biblical scholars hae ound many analogies or the use o
genealogies and eponyms in the literature o other ancient Near Lastern
peoples, including Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian royal
inscriptions, as well as lellenistic sources.
8
1he most comprehensie
study to date is the classic work o R. \ilson, in which the ormal
eatures o oral genealogies are listed.
9
\ilson dierentiates between
two types o oral genealogies: segmented genealogies`, which articulate
more than one line o descent rom an ancestor, thus exhibiting seeral
segments or branches rom the same source, and linear genealogies`,
which express only one line o descendent rom a orebearer. 1he orm
o a genealogy is determined by the unction it plays in the society, thus,
genealogies may unction in three spheres: domestic, religious and
politico-jural. \hen genealogies unction in the domestic ield, they are
used to deine the personal status, rights and obligations ,in biological,
economic and geographical terms, o the people that are members o
that lineage. \ithin the religious unction, indiiduals are deined
according to their relationship with certain institutions o the religious
sphere ,o which the most requent are the ancestor and royal cults,

6
L. Nielsen, Orat 1raaitiov. . Moaerv Probtev iv Ota 1e.tavevt vtroavctiov
,4th ed., London: SCM, 1961,, l. L. Deist, Orature, Lditure`, Literature -
Relections on Orality, Literariness and lirst 1estament Literature,` ]^ 20
,1994,: 155-63, S. Niditch, Orat !orta ava !rittev !orta: .vcievt .raetite
iteratvre ,Louisille: \estminster John Knox, 1996,, A. Dundes, ot, !rit a.
Orat it: 1be ibte a. ot/tore ,Lanham: Rowman & Littleield, 1999,, \. M.
Schniedewind, Orality and Literacy in Ancient Israel,` Retigiov. tvaie. Rerier
26 ,2000,: 32-32, idem, or tbe ibte ecave a oo/: 1be 1etvatiatiov of .vcievt
.raet ,Cambridge: Cambridge Uniersity Press, 2004,.
Although this date is not widely accepted, see the reiew o

Schniedewind, Orality and Literacy`.
8
C. the works o A. Malamat, King Lists o the Old Babylonian Period
and Biblical Genealogies,` ].O 88 ,1968,: 163-3, R. R. \ilson, 1he Old
1estament Genealogies in Recent Research,` ] 94 ,195,: 13-8, 182-88,
idem, Ceveatog, ava i.tor, iv tbe ibticat !orta ,\ale Near Lastern Researches ,
New laen and London: \ale Uniersity Press, 19,, idem, Between Azel`
and Azel`. Interpreting the Biblical Genealogies,` . 42 ,199,: 11-22, idem,
Genealogy, Genealogies,` .D 2: 929-32, 1. J. Prewitt, Kinship Structures
and the Genesis Genealogies,` ]^ 40 ,1981,: 8-98, R. S. less, 1he
Genealogies o Genesis 1-11 and Comparatie Literature,` ib 0 ,1989,: 241-
54, N. Steinberg, 1he Genealogical lramework o the lamily Stories in
Genesis,` eveia 46 ,1989,: 41-50, G. A. Rendsburg, 1he Internal Consistency
and listorical Reliability o the Biblical Genealogies,` 11 40 ,1990,: 185-206,
G. N. Knoopers, Greek listoriography and the Chronicler`s listory: A
Reexamination,` ] 122 ,2003,: 62-50.
9
\ilson, Ceveatog, ava i.tor,, 18-55.

and,or with religious organizations or hierarchies.
B<=( 1he most important unction or our purposes is the politico-
jural, which coneys the amount o power possessed by indiiduals and
lineages, and thereby the political relationships between them. In
societies with centralized goernment, genealogies are mainly o the
linear type, because their purpose is to justiy the holding, or claims o
holding, o inherited oices in the political structure. lor example,
linear genealogies requently express the ather-to-son relationships in
royal lineages. In acephalous` societies, where centralized goernment
is absent, and where the political system is based on lineage or unilineal
descent groups, segmented genealogies are dominant. In this case,
segmented genealogies are used to state political, economic and
geographical relationships between peer groups like tribes, clans or
amilies.
B<=C As \ilson puts it, A lineage system uses the biological amily
as a model and then expresses att social relationships as kinship
relationships`.
80
Occasionally genealogies hae operated in more than
one o these three spheres. 1his has ery oten caused the prolieration,
within a gien society, o seeral apparently conlicting genealogies,
each o them being congruent in its own terms and unctions.
B<=D 1he two types o genealogies ,linear and segmented, share two
important eatures: depth and luidity. Depth, the number o
generations o a gien lineage, is not rigid and aries rom one
genealogy to the other. Moreoer, the depth o a lineage can be changed
rom one recitation to the other. lluidity is perhaps the most perplexing
characteristic or the modern way o thinking, modeled as it is on the
written text. 1he oral nature o genealogies signiies that they can
change rapidly, and these transormations may hae distinct reasons.
lor our purposes here, we will ocus on the changes in segmentary
genealogies. lirst, changes may relect alterations in the relationships
between peer groups. 1he inclusion o a determined clan in a tribe, or
example, can be echoed in the inclusion o the new clan`s eponym into
the net o the segmented genealogy o the tribe. A related change
between peer groups is that i a segment attains more power or status in
the social structure, then its eponymous ancestor is expected to moe to
a higher position in the lineage genealogy ,e.g. rom son to ather,. On
the contrary, when a segment loses power, its ounder may be placed in
a lower position in the genealogical scheme ,e.g. rom ather to son,. In
addition, some lineages disappear rom the genealogical structure when
the corresponding group splits o rom the local social structure or
disappears altogether. In all these cases, a society may presere dierent
ersions o the same genealogy, ersions that may represent the actual
or attempted realignments o the lineage segments in the ace o new
situations, or may mimic the conlicting claims or political power,
social status or possession o lands.
81

B<=E I raise these three issues ,kinship, segmentation and orality,, in
order to proide seeral analytic tools that may enable us to better
comprehend questions surrounding the tradition o the brotherhood
between Jacob and Lsau.

80
Between Azel` and Azel`,` 12. \ilson,
81
\ilson, Ceveatog, ava i.tor,, 21-3.

"-< ,5' .#02,+%.,-#0 #7 ,5' /*.#1?'2*% ,+*6-,-#0
(<= 1hus ar, we hae discussed dierse topics in a limited and
speciic sense, without ully bringing them together in a complete
picture. \e are now in a position to say something more positie about
the social, historical and mental contingencies that shaped the tradition
o Jacob and Lsau. I would argue that in order to really understand its
origin and characteristics, we should iew the Jacob-Lsau tradition
against the contemporary sociopolitical situation in which it was
generated: the Nege region during the Late Iron Age, that is, between
the late eighth and early sixth centuries B.C. Put simply, the assumption
is that this period proided the historical it iv ebev or the origin and
deelopment o the brotherhood story in its pre-literary orm, and that
thereby its present arrangement can be dated to this period. At a later
stage, the saga was transerred in written orm into the lebrew Bible as
it stands today. Once this is recognized, many diicult to understand
passages begin to all into place.
(<> \e start with the central act that during the Late Iron Age the
areas encompassing both sides o the Arabah were culturally similar in
many ways. laing seen the laws o the political-military hypotheses,
the most likely scenario has more to do with social and demographic
circumstances than with ormal political relationships. Demographically,
the similarity o the material culture o the Nege with that o southern
Jordan relects the regular two-way moements o people across the
Arabah alley. Our main eidence, the appearance o southern
Jordanian cultural traits in the Nege, reeals a slow but persistent
process o settlement o groups originating in southern Jordan
,Ldomites were the main, but not the only component, which probably
included Kenites, Kenizites, lorites, Midianites, and other lineages as
well,. 1hese groups ollowed the pastoral migration itineraries, and
most likely, the trade routes as well. 1hus, the distribution o the so-
called Ldomite ware should not be understood as mirroring the
presence o Ldomites alone because other local groups might hae
manuactured and used it as well.
(<@ Gien this new situation among the Judaean population o the
Nege, a process o ideological metamorphosis was needed is-a-is the
newcomers. Signiicant new questions arose, that were rooted in the
sense o identity o the local population: how should we regard these
new neighbors, with whom we share economic resources, and with
whom we may ery possibly begin to intermingle 1he joint residence
o people rom both sides o the Arabah could be accommodated
ideologically as along as it was compatible with the language o kinship.
Due to a tendency to iew the political-geographical situations in terms
o kinship relationships, the emergence o olklore linking the
eponymous ancestors o people originating west and east o the Arabah
was expected. In a process that we know only by its closing stage,
Jordanian Ldom ,which up to this point does not seem to hae been
more than a territorial designation or southern Jordan, merged with the
older saga o Lsau, an ancestor originally connected with the Nege ,~
Seir, -who was also a brother o Israelite Jacob. In this way, Ldom and
Jacob were regarded as brothers, the closest horizontal relationship
between relaties.
82
So why were they regarded as brothers and not

82
1his process can be paralleled in other examples o migrations` o
people, which despite being attested by archaeological and historical sources

another kinship relation It may be that the usual enmity between
Ldomites and Judaeans did not allow them to think in terms o Ldom
as a son` o Jacob, and hence part o the people o Israel. 1hus,
brother` became a more acceptable term o relationship.
(<A By the same token, the appearance o segmentary genealogical
lists relating southern Jordanian and Nege groups might not be
surprising gien the procliity to express politico-jural relationships
between groups through the lenses o kinship-based segments. 1hus,
the Judaean population o the Nege adjusted their own genealogies to
it the new situation. Not only was Ldom linked with Lsau, but also a
whole series o kinship links began to appear connecting secondary
characters, e.g., between Ldomite or Ldomite-related lineages
,especially descendants o Lsau and Seir,, and Judaean or Judaean-
related lineages ,especially descendants o Caleb and Jerahmeel,. In
other words, the long segmentary genealogical lists o Genesis and
Chronicles must be analyzed in the terms o their politico-jural
unction, which was to express the integration o the Jordanian
newcomers into the nets o Judaean or Judaean-related peoples liing in
the Nege.
(<B In the Chronicles` genealogies some groups appear ully
incorporated into the center o Judah`s social organization, while others
are just placed in its periphery. Among the ormer were prominent clans
o the lezronite Calebites and the Jerahmeelites. In addition, some
groups not ully incorporated into the Judaean clans appear, especially
the Jephunnite Calebites, Kenites, Kenizites, lorites and Midianites.
83

\e would suggest that the second group comprises mostly southern
Jordanian clans recently arried at the Judaean Nege. A complex and
sometimes conused net o amily relationships emerged, in which more
oten than not dierent, parallel ersions o a genealogy coexisted. 1he
example o Caleb is just the most perplexing case. As we hae seen,
conlicting genealogies are a common eature o oral societies, and these
dierent ersions may buttress conlicting social, political and economic
claims.
(<( Len so, the clue o the genealogical relationships may be
misleading in certain cases. Conceiably, the biblical attitude towards
the Amalekites demonstrates that kinship relationships did not
necessarily relect the socio-historical situation o that time. Rather, they
relect the Judaean point o iew o the geopolitics o the Nege region.
(<C 1he prehistory o the material that we hae reconstructed so ar
can account or the act that the same genealogical name may relate to a
modern toponym in southern Jordan or to an Ldomite` descendant,
and at the same time appear as a Judaean or Judaean-related clan in 1
Chronicles. 1his can be explained in two ways. lirst, the dual
appearance may mimic the nomadic moement o the group rom
southern Jordan to the Nege. Second, it can be that one group had
segments on both sides o the \adi Arabah. On this latter point, the

suer rom a cultural amnesia that selects the elements it considers more
conenient. lor the case o the Israelites, see 1. L. Ley and A. l. C. loll,
Migrations, Lthnogenesis, and Settlement Dynamics: Israelites in Iron Age
Canaan and Shuwa-Arabs in the Chad Basin,` ]ovrvat of .vtbrootogicat
.rcbaeotog, 21 ,2002,: 83-118. lor an Arican example, see Ndege, Myth` as a
listorical Basis o the Meru lolktales`.
83
Knoopers, Intermarriage, Social Complexity, and Lthnic Diersity in
the Genealogy o Judah,` 2.

distribution o segments along discontinuous territories is, as we hae
seen, a major eature o nomadic societies with a segmentary
organization, which ensures access to ecologically dierse
enironments.
84
It would not be going too ar to suppose that when
there is eidence o a group with strong connections with southern
Jordan and the Nege, a case can be made o this group comprising
segments both east and west o the Arabah ,e.g., the Ldomite Kenizites
and the Calebite Kenizites,.
(<D lrom the aboe argumentation it seems obious that this
ideological change might not hae been possible without the luidity
that is characteristic o oral genealogies. A major implication is that the
irst expressions o the Jacob-Lsau story, and o the genealogical
relationships relating Nege and southern Jordanian groups, might not
hae been the written narraties that we ind in the books o Genesis
and Chronicles, but rather the oral tales that were common in the Late
Iron Nege.
(<E As is well known, traditional scholarship deeloped the idea o
dierent, consecutie documentary strands ,J, L, D, P, that made up
the content o the Pentateuch. \hile multiple repetitions, doublets,
juxtapositions, dierences and discrepancies between some parts o the
Pentateuch can be attributed to such documents, this pattern can also
be explained by the original oral background o the biblical narratie. As
noted aboe, in the oral olklore there are as many minor ariants
respectie to a myth as there are repetitions o it. I we concede that
some material in Genesis is a materialization o the traditional oral
olklore o southern Judah, then it is possible to understand the co-
existence o dierent and juxtaposed ersions o the legend o Lsau: his
dierent names with their dierent etymologies, e.g., Lsau in the birth
story ,25:25,, Ldom in the pottage account ,25:30,, and the dierent
and conlicting genealogies, such as those inside Gen 36, and between
Gen 36 and 1 Chron 1-4.
85
1hese dierse popular traditions may hae
co-existed, and yet were kept apart in oral orm, to be later conlated
when Ldom was attached to the tradition o Lsau, inally making their
way into the literary corpus o the Pentateuchal tradition. In this way,
the traditions lost their transitory character and gained a more
permanent character.
86
1hese stories came to be disseminated in wider
circles among the Judaean population, and the prophetic works that we
hae reiewed made ree use o them in the ace o the eents o the
late pre-exilic and exilic periods.
(<=F 1his approach has a major implication in chronological terms.
Indications o southern Jordanian material culture west o the Arabah
cannot be earlier than the late eighth century B.C., thereore, this can be
considered as the terminus post quem or the oral deelopment o the
brotherhood tradition and the consequent genealogical links.
(<== O course, this is not to say that the tradition remained
unchanged during its transition rom oral to literary orm. I the saga

84
gmentation: Reality ` 822, 825. Gellner, Se or Myth,
85
C. \ilson, Ceveatog, ava i.tor,, 180-81.
86
O course, this is not to say that the southern Jordanian groups did not
bring with them memories o their own olklore. On this point, A. Zeron has
argued that ancient sagas such as the stories o Cain, Lamech, Jabal, Jubal and
1ubal-Cain were originally part o the heritage o the Ldomite nomadic clans
and later were incorporated into the Israelite corpus o traditions, idem, 1he
Swansong o Ldom,` 191-92.

ound its place in the biblical canon, it is because it was suitable or the
people who put it in writing, in this case, the scribal school o the
Jerusalem temple o the late Judaean kingdom. Since literacy was
particularly ,but not totally, tied to sociopolitical and economic
centralization in Jerusalem,
8
the spread o writing during the late
Judaean monarchy may hae shaped in many ways the oral traditions
that were widespread in Judah at that time, especially to coney and
legitimize the interests o the priestly class and the monarchy.
88
Len i
the Jacob-Lsau saga`s plot and main characters were not changed when
the tradition was transormed into a literary work, the saga`s meaning
did change in the new social setting. As \. M. Schniedewind put it in
other context, the meaning o the Bible will be embedded in the
history o the people who wrote it, read it, passed it on, rewrote it, and
read it again. It is closely tied to when the traditions were collected,
written down, edited, rewritten, and inally coalesced into the book we
call the Bible.`
89
In this regard, those Genesis passages concerned with
the primacy o Jacob oer Lsau, such as \ahweh`s words to Rebekah
,25:23, and Isaac`s blessing ,2:2-29, 39-40,, appear to be posterior
additions by the priestly editors o Jerusalem who retrospectiely
iewed the story o Jacob and Lsau as a relection o the relationship
between Israel,Judah and Ldom. Ironically, whereas the ideological
assimilation o Ldomite groups into the Judaean cohorts o the Nege
originally arose in the society o the northern Nege, it doubtlessly
sered a larger purpose o legitimizing the domination o the Judaean
state oer the entire Nege region.

8
Schniedewind, Orality and Literacy in Ancient Israel`.
88
lor the image o territory and kinship created by the late Judaean
monarchy, see S. Grosby, Kinship, 1erritory, and the Nation in the
listo cient Israel,` Z.! 105 ,1993,: 3-18. riography o An
89
Schniedewind, or tbe ibte ecave a oo/, 5.


C2D'(# EF =*4# :(&) 7D# 524#5 2) 4"# ?#D#G *)B ;B&H

The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures: ISSN 1203-1542

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures: ISSN 1203-1542

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

!"# %&'()*+ &, -#.

1his paper incorporates part o my Ph.D. dissertation at the Uniersity

1his radical reersal

Although this date is not widely accepted, see the reiew o

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen